Motion picture production tax credit. (SB982)

Introduced By

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Motion picture production tax credit. Extends the sunset date of the motion picture production tax credit from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2022. Amends § 58.1-439.12:03, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/03/2017Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17102135D
01/03/2017Referred to Committee on Finance
01/18/2017Impact statement from TAX (SB982)
01/31/2017Reported from Finance (16-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/01/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/02/2017Read second time and engrossed
02/02/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/02/2017Passed Senate (32-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
02/06/2017Placed on Calendar
02/06/2017Read first time
02/06/2017Referred to Committee on Finance
02/06/2017Impact statement from TAX (SB982)
02/13/2017Reported from Finance (20-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/14/2017Read second time
02/15/2017Read third time
02/15/2017Passed House (83-Y 15-N 1-A)
02/15/2017VOTE: PASSAGE (83-Y 15-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/17/2017Enrolled
02/17/2017Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB982ER)
02/17/2017Signed by Speaker
02/20/2017Impact statement from TAX (SB982ER)
02/20/2017Signed by President
02/21/2017Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 2/21/17
02/21/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
03/13/2017G Approved by Governor-Chapter 425 (effective 7/1/17)
03/13/2017G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0425)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 6 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Sen. Ryan McDougle (R-Mechanicsville): YOU HAVE TO POST A BOND FOR NOT ONLY WHAT THE JUDGMENT WAS IN DISTRICT COURT, BUT ALSO FOR THE ATTORNEYS FEES THAT WERE AWARDED IN DISTRICT COURT. MR. PRESIDENT, WE'VE HAD A LONG-STANDING POLICY ABOUT ALLOWING OR REQUIRING THAT A BOND BE POSTED FOR THE ACTUAL JUDGMENT AMOUNT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO OWED MONEY DID NOT PROLONG THE PROCESS UNNECESSARILY. BUT MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE SOME REAL SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES ARE GOING TO BE WHAT COULD BE A BAR TO YOU APPEALING THE CASE TO CIRCUIT COURT, BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THAT 25,000. THEY COULD BE 5,000. THEY COULD BE 10,000, COULD BE 15,000. MR. PRESIDENT, I DO THINK THAT THAT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGES HOW WE DEAL WITH THESE APPEALS AND IS THE REASON I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO AND WOULD ASK THE MEMBERS TO, AS WELL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN. I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE BODY THAT THERE ARE COURTS THAT ARE ALREADY REQUIRING ATTORNEYS FEES TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE THERE ARE JUST SOME JUDGES THAT BOND. WEREN'T SURE IF THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY OR NOT THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY EXISTED, AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BY MAKING IT CLEAR IN THE CODE THAT ATTORNEYS FEES ARE, IN FACT, PART OF YOUR DAMAGES, IT MAKES IT CLEAR. JUST SO THE BODY HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST SOMEBODY FOR WHAT MIGHT BE A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY, MAYBE 2, 3, 4, $5,000. THE OTHER SIDE LITIGATES IT VERY VIGOROUSLY AND YOU END UP RUNNING UP A 10 OR $15,000 BILL, WHICH YOUR CONTRACT -- A LOT OF BUSINESSES HAVE ATTORNEYS FEES IN THEIR CONTRACT. THERE ARE ALSO STATUTES ALLOWING YOU TO RECOVER ATTORNEY FEES. THEY RUN UP A BIG BILL AND YOU GET THAT AS PART OF YOUR AWARD. THIS SIMPLY SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LITIGATE THIS TO DEATH, DEFEND IT TO DEATH, THEN IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL IT AT THE CIRCUIT COURT AND KEEP IT GOING, YOU SHOULD HAVE TO POST UP CASH IN THAT AMOUNT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT LAWSUIT GOING. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR EXISTING POLICY IN THE STATE AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME. I URGE THE BODY TO PASS THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN COUNTY, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, I HAD INTENDED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL UNTIL LISTENING TO THE REMARKS OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM HANOVER. THE TRIAL DE NOVO IS SUCH AN ELEMENTAL PIECE OF OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT I THINK ANYTHING THAT PUTS IT AT RISK, ANYTHING THAT IMPEDES THE USE OF IT IS REALLY SORT OF A FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION IN THE WAY THAT WE DO THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS ARE JUSTICE. SORT OF THE EVERY MAN'S COURT. THEY'RE THE PLACE FOR COMMONDY COMMONDY -- COMMON DISPUTES TO BE RESOLVED AND HOPEFULLY TO BE RESOLVED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT OVERLY TAX THE LIT GATS. THAT'S ONE OF OUR HUGE PROBLEM. IT COSTS SO MUCH MONEY TO GO THROUGH COURT. I RELUCTANTLY WILL CHANGE MY VOTE TO NO BECAUSE I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANYTHING THAT INCREASES THE BURDEN ON THE ORDINARY LITIGANT. THANK YOU.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY,

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB1665.